Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

Nah, he has other literature there.

"Sometimes, when I sleep at night, I think of 'Hop on Pop'"

    —George W. Bush, in a speech about childhood education, AP, April 2, 2002

[billybob2002 0]

Welcome to Bush bash 2004 in a humorous way...

[Balschoiw 0]

During the TV transmission I thought I heard some clicks from his head but probably that was just the reset progress...

Can take a while when Bush lost concept. Enough examples provided.

Hey sorry but even after the attack the response was not so let´s say...successfull, efficient and brave.

Unfortunally this is only one story of G.W. Folks, seriously, can´t you see that this man is doing harm to your country ?

He is no good for anyone but himself. Can´t you see that ?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Oh what a suprise? Not!

Quote[/b] ]July Surprise?

Thursday, Jul 29, 2004; 7:21 PM

Earlier this month, the New Republic reported that the Bush administration was putting pressure on Pakistan to arrest some major-league terrorists before the November election.

In fact, the magazine quoted one unidentified Pakistani intelligence official as saying that a White House aide told the head of the spy agency last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT [High-Value Target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July." Those just happened to be the first three days of the Democratic convention.

Um, guess what?

The AP has reported Thursday afternoon that "Pakistan has arrested a Tanzanian al Qaeda suspect wanted by the United States in the 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday. He said the suspect was cooperating and had given authorities 'very valuable' information."

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was reportedly to be on the FBI's list of 22 most wanted terrorists, and a reward of up to $25 million was offered for his capture.

And get this: The arrest was actually made Sunday, the AP reported from Islamabad. But the capture was announced Thursday. The bulletins hit the wires soon after 3 p.m., or about seven hours before John Kerry delivers his acceptance speech.

Coincidence?

Obviously, I have no evidence that there's any connection between the timing of the arrest and the allegations made by the New Republic, which White House officials dismissed at the time. But the way the announcement was handled raises questions, to say the least. If you nabbed Ghailani on Sunday, why on earth would you wait until hours before Kerry's speech to tell the world -- and open yourself up to charges of politicizing the war on terror?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

Not at all suprised Walker

[SpongeBob 0]

Welcome to Bush bash 2004 in a humorous way...

So you're not looking forward to War Criminal Kerry's speech tonight?

[red oct 2]

Getting the nuclear football into the air on Air force One when the nation comes under attack is entirely one man's responsibility, the President's. Bush failed to do that in the proper amount of time. I am amazed nobody else has brought this up. There is a doctrine and a protocol that must be followed when the nation is attacked, not should be followed, but must be followed. Bush was trained to follow it when he took office. He has regular drills that update his training on how to follow the doctrine. He failed to follow it and endangered our national security.

Nobody is allowed to make distinctions over what type of attack is taking place and then elect to follow or not follow the doctrine. That simply isn't an option. No one knew for sure who was attacking the United States on September 11th. No one knew what the scale or extent of the attacks would be, or who was backing them, whether it was a terrorist group or a another nation. For all Bush knew, ICBMs were streaking across the icecaps as he sat there looking at an upside-down copy of "My Pet Goat".

He froze, plain and simple. He didn't react to the situation and his training was useless.

This is the commander in chief, this is the guy with the nuclear launch codes.

Is this the guy you want at the helm if we are attacked by a nuclear capable power?

i never said i wanted him in the "helm" thats why i said i don't support him and YES i do want him out offfice. i didn't like him in 2000, and still don't like him now. so what if he sat there? and what difference would it have made? the damage had been done. the 9/11 commission has stated the fault lies w/ both clintons and bush's administration, as well as the CIA and FBI. it happened 3 years ago, and i'd rather focus on the problems that are effecting us in the present.

[bn880 5]

and i'd rather focus on the problems that are effecting us in the present.

I would not stop asking questions about that event if I were you, sure looking forward is important, but sometimes you can't make a good decision without past knowledge.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

^The speech

Liked the beginning of the speech...reporting for duty. Can somebody explain to me how Kerry could of got in to East Berlin.

Quote[/b] ]

We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.  

France, Germany, and Russia already said no to really being in Iraq, unless the secret meeting with the European leaders said yes. Anyway, the Saudis (the people he dis) are trying to set-up (in the baby stages) a islamic force of Muslim countries (that do not border Iraq) that could reduce coalition troops or increase the size of troops in Iraq.  

Quote[/b] ]

As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement all the recommendations of that commission.  

Bush is taking care of that....(not all but some, right away)

Quote[/b] ]

You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service

This has a high chance of haunting him..

Quote[/b] ]

We value an America where the middle class is not being squeezed, but doing better.

So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America: first, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing; second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future; third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas.  

Instead, we will reward the companies that create and keep good- paying jobs right where they belong, in the good old USA.

We value an America that exports products, not jobs. And we believe American workers should never have to subsidize the loss of their own job.

Next, we will trade, and we will compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field, because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's no one in the world that the American worker can't compete against.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225

Quote[/b] ]

A Kerry ad released July 20 returns to a theme he and his Democratic allies have been pushing for months: a claim that tax incentives to locate jobs overseas is a big problem that is Bush's fault and that Kerry promises to fix.

Kerry's latest ad -- all positive -- paints his tax fix as the centerpiece of a plan to create jobs -- the "lifeline for America's families." The negative side, blaming Bush, has been seen earlier in ads such as a Media Fund spot first aired last March saying "Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs" and "he supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas."

But recent Labor Department data underscore what even Democratic economists have said for some time -- outsourcing jobs overseas, or "offshoring," accounts for just a small fraction of the many millions of jobs that are lost each year even in a good economy.

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

But even backers of the Kerry plan concede that eliminating the tax break won't end the offshoring of some US jobs. Multinational businesses build plants in other countries to take advantage of lower wages and to be near their global customers, too, not just for tax reasons.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208

Quote[/b] ]

Now that the economy is growing and creating new jobs, John Kerry has been saying that the quality of those jobs is "much lower" than the quality of jobs that have been lost. A recent ad by some Kerry allies even shows a middle-aged man reporting for his new job wearing a paper hat at a seedy-looking burger joint.

Well, hold on -- there's strong new evidence to the contrary.

A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It's the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive -- supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.

Another statistic often overlooked by Bush critics is that average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office, though modestly. Even after adjusting for inflation -- including the rising price of gasoline --those earnings are up just over 1% since January 2001, despite the recession and the initially slow recovery.

These statistics come from a different BLS survey and cover a somewhat different time period than the figures cited by Kerry. They are going to be controversial and won't settle the good jobs/bad jobs argument. There's also plenty of evidence that large numbers of Americans are indeed worse off now than they were before 2001, including the fact that more than 1 million Americans have been out of work for a full year or more.

We can't disprove Kerry's claim that bad jobs are replacing good jobs over the past few months. But we do see good evidence that job quality has increased over the past year or more.

BAHBAHBAH. Anyway, the speech was pretty good and was mixture of Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and Gore speeches (conventions and debates). It seemed rushed at the end but I guess Kerry & co. were afraid the public attention span will not last any longer. He talks about balancing the budget but he wants to do a lot of things. Lastly, Bush is not the only person that said God was on are side...(WWII and the Cold War)

5 more weeks until Bush's big day in New York..  I was thinking, to counter Kerry's "band of bros.", he could have those 21 MOH winners on stage to introduce him.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I just saw the Kerry Acceptance speach and the man came across as a Politician with unshakable Values, Integrety and the Strength to be America's Commander in Chief.

He is obviously a thougtful man full of belief in the country he has served solidly since the early 1960s when he voluntered to put his life on the line for his country and its flag, right up to the present day as a crusading and hard working Senator via years of service as state prosecutor.

His Children all clearly love him and think the world of him as do the men who served under him in Vietnam.

Clearly this man is strong in his beliefs that America can do better. He has set himself that mission to end the cynisism, and bitternes and to bring America out of the dark divided days.

He believes in the goal of takeing America forward once again to its dreams of a brighter tommorow. To give America back the belief in itself. That is the kind of Presidency the United States Deserves.

In that speach he set out what has made Amerca great in the past and what can make great once again. It was a wonderful speach set to asure the down troden of Amerca that help is on the way and that things will get better. He has promised to heal America and bring it once more into hope and energy for the future.

It reminded me most of the speaches of the the labour Party and Tony Blair as it moved to oust the conservatives in the UK and was swept into power on surge national hope.

It was a message of hope for America, from a future President, for a Comander in Chief that the nation can trust to Act when called on, and to pursue a better and brighter future all the citizens of the Unite States of America. To make America once again a beacon to the world.

You can read the full text of John F. Kerry's Speach here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can read the full text of John F. Kerry's Speach here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

You must of completely skipped my post...

[walker 0]

5 more weeks until Bush's big day in New York..  I was thinking, to counter Kerry's "band of bros.", he could have those 21 MOH winners on stage to introduce him.

Hi billybob2002

Why dont you suggest he does that.

Kind Regards Walker

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Need to register to read the article.

That website you keep referring to seems to be very, very biased towards republicans (in favour of republicans.) Does it ever say anything remotely bad about them?

Anyway: how Kerry could have been in East Germany: Whatever the US/ Nato equivalent of Brixmis was. (I don't know what specifically you are referring to but I think you mean at some point in the cold war)

That is; he could have been going across as part of a spotting team to view the soviet parade (and unofficially anything else around.) - this was in order to check the other side wasn't cheating on the terms of the peace accords they had. Soviet teams ran similar inspections on the other side of the border.

Or it could have been some political thing.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Need to register to read the article.

That website you keep referring to seems to be very, very biased towards republicans (in favour of republicans.)  Does it ever say anything remotely bad about them?

one sec....

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=226

Quote[/b] ]

Anti-Kerry Ad Highlights Changes On Welfare, Death Penalty

Club for Growth PAC ad also recycles some misleading tax claims we've de-bunked before.

July 29, 2004

Modified: July 29, 2004

Summary

A Club for Growth PAC TV ad released July 26 accurately cites Kerry's changing positions over the years on welfare reform, the death penalty for terrorists, and gasoline taxes.

But it also falsely implies that he's voted to raise taxes 350 times, a claim we've de-bunked before.

And the ad's main conclusion -- that Kerry "has a big problem making up his mind" -- is a matter of opinion, not fact. We provide some additional information to help voters put Kerry's changing positions in context.

or

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=216

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Ah right, you just ignore the parts that malign Bush.

I see.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ah right, you just ignore the parts that malign Bush.

I see.

Yep. However, people can explore the site for many truths that go against Kerry or Bush.

[billybob2002 0]

Edit: nm....just explore the site....

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I found alternate sources for the speech. Its quite good. I think I'd vote for Kerry if I was American.

This is the only part I don't like:

"And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country."

And its not that bad. Could have had more reference to the other 15% of Americans that are totally missing from that statement. But its far better than Bush's claims to be a messenger from god or whatever religious crap he spouts.

Quote[/b] ]Kerry released a TV ad June 3 in which he tells a small gathering that 43 million don't have health care. That's not true -- he means they don't have health insurance. He also says health care "ought to be a right that we make accessible and affordable to every single American." But even his own proposals fall short of making health care a "right," and would leave an estimated 16 million uninsured.

Despite the exaggeration, Kerry's ad gives a generally correct impression of a growing problem, and highlights a major point of difference between the candidates on what to do about it.

............

That would be a major accomplishment -- and an expensive one. Thorpe estimates the cost at $653 billion over 10 years. But it would still leave about 16 million Americans without coverage.

Is the writer stupid or does he not realise that 16 million without coverage is better than 43 million without coverage? I don't see such a fundamental change to US policies (you guys are really opposed to helping other Americans, aren't you?) being done in one step ; and that seems like a good first step to me. He didn't even say he would give all americans health coverage; he said they should have coverage. Whats the problem?

The other thing: I don't quite get it. Was Kerry voting for something that would hinder abortion, or for something that would leave women with their right to choose?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is the writer stupid or does he not realise that 16 million without coverage is better than 43 million without coverage?  I don't see such a fundamental change to US policies (you guys are really opposed to helping other Americans, aren't you?) being done in one step ; and that seems like a good first step to me.  He didn't even say he would give all americans health coverage; he said they should have coverage.  Whats the problem?

16 million is still a large number and the price tag is very high. Also, he did say he would give all americans health coverage....

Quote[/b] ]

And when I am president, we will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, and the connected and the elected; it is a right for all Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

And we will make it so.

Quote[/b] ]

The other thing: I don't quite get it.  Was Kerry voting for something that would hinder abortion, or for something that would leave women with their right to choose?

Quote[/b] ]

What Kerry and 34 other Democrats actually voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act ." The new law recognizes an "unborn child" as a second victim if injured or killed during certain federal crimes of violence against the mother. The bill was backed by anti-abortion groups while opponents called it an attempt to undermine abortion rights. Kerry voted for an alternative measure to accomplish the same end but without making specific reference to an "unborn child."

Basically, pro-abortioners were afraid that calling a fetus an "unborn child"/human will start lawsuits against abortions.

Edit: confused pro-life with pro-abortioners....

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

16 million is still a large number and the price tag is very high. Also, he did say he would give all americans health coverage....

Quote[/b] ]

And when I am president, we will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, and the connected and the elected; it is a right for all Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

And we will make it so.

He doesn't say 'all Americans will immediately get health care' - he just says he will make it a right. Theres a difference. And as I said, I don't see that big a change coming quickly to selfish americans. You will need a little time to get used to the idea.

Quote[/b] ]

Basically, pro-lifers were afraid that calling a fetus an "unborn child"/human will start lawsuits against abortions.

...You're not saying you're one of those fuckwits who are against abortion, are you? And that sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mean pro-choice?

*edit*

Yes, you did. How many babies have you brought up on a single mothers income? None? Then I don't think you have any idea or right to speak about abortion, thank you very much.

[Bernadotte 0]

From Bernadotte's notebook:

In 1988, the Governor of Arkansas gave one of the speeches at the Dem Convention.  It was very boring.  So boring that, after 25 minutes, when he said "...and in conclusion" the audience broke out in applause that the speech was nearly over.  Four years later that same Governor won his party's nomination and went on to defeat Bush Sr for the presidency.  This year, Dem campaign organisers actually urged Clinton to tone down his speech out of fear that he might upstage Kerry.  How times change.  Believe me when I say that the speech Kerry gave tonight was much better than the one Clinton gave in 1992.

Four years ago, when Al Gore ran for president he rejected nearly all offers of support from Clinton because he feared the Lewinsky scandal would damage his campaign.  In fact, he even chose Joe Liebermann as his VP candidate partly because Liebermann was the first Dem Senator to openly side with Republicans over the Lewinsky affair.  Analysts speculate that his strategy backfired so badly that Gore could not even win his home state of Tennessee.  Yet he ended up virtually even with Bush.

Given that Kerry's campaign is so much further ahead than Gore's ever was and that everyone now knows Bush so much better than in 2000 I'm going to predict a landslide victory for the Democrats this November.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, you did. How many babies have you brought up on a single mothers income? None? Then I don't think you have any idea or right to speak about abortion, thank you very much.

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry and other abortion-rights advocates called the measure a backdoor attempt to challenge legal abortion by defining a fetus as a human being with legal protection. Kerry (and nearly half the Senate) supported a different measure that would have had the same effect without making reference to an "unborn child."

I missed up by putting pro-lifers, okay....

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Given that Kerry's campaign is so much further ahead than Gore's ever was and that everyone now knows Bush so much better than in 2000 I'm going to predict a landslide victory for the Democrats this November.

want bet...

[Schoeler 0]

Liked the beginning of the speech...reporting for duty. Can somebody explain to me how Kerry could of got in to East Berlin.

It was easy enough, there were several "gates" or crossing points between the two sides of the city. The Brandenburg gate comes to mind. As a kid, he probably could have ridden his bicycle across and gotten nothing but surprised and bemused reactions from the guards on either side.

Quote[/b] ]This has a high chance of haunting him..

Maybe, I thought the same thing, but Kerry has a reasonable enough explanation for this despite Republican attack dog efforts to block the average American from hearing it. All you have to do is read the text of his speeches given when he voted yes for the war and no for the approriations to get confirmation on why he did both. It's a matter of public record the Bush campaign can't erase. This sort of thing is more suitable to address in the debates anyway, and not an acceptance speech.

Quote[/b] ]BAHBAHBAH. Anyway, the speech was pretty good and was mixture of Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and Gore speeches (conventions and debates). It seemed rushed at the end but I guess Kerry & co. were afraid the public attention span will not last any longer. He talks about balancing the budget but he wants to do a lot of things. Lastly, Bush is not the only person that said God was on are side...(WWII and the Cold War)

I don't think you heard that right. He didn't say God was on his side. In fact, he said quite the opposite. Quoting Lincoln, he humbly hoped that he was on the side of God. Not at all the same arrogant claim the right has insisted on making all along.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]He doesn't say 'all Americans will immediately get health care' - he just says he will make it a right.  Theres a difference.  And as I said, I don't see that big a change coming quickly to selfish americans.  You will need a little time to get used to the idea.

Selflish? Anyway, I got health insurance...i must be well connected...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't think you heard that right.  He didn't say God was on his side.  In fact, he said quite the opposite.  Quoting Lincoln, he humbly hoped that he was on the side of God.  Not at all the same arrogant claim the right has insisted on making all along.

I was saying that other people before Bush used the term before him (WWII and the Cold War).